BOARD DATE:	  27 October 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140018381 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for removal of the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the rating period 23 June 2011 through 6 January 2012 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from his official military personnel file (OMPF).  Additionally, he requests to appear before the Board.

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

	a.  The contested OER was unjust and reflects inaccurate information which was proven false in the Eastern Judicial Circuit Court of Georgia (GA) (shown on the document provided by the applicant and hereafter referred to as Superior Court of Chatham County, State of GA).

	b.  The Board's purposeful disregarding of evidence to protect senior members of the Army helps to perpetuate the railroading of his career by the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG); he contends this proves institutional racism still exists even in the year 2014.

	c.  In reaching its decision on his case, the Board overlooked and disregarded the following questions:

* how does his commenting to a police officer that his actions were racist become judged as being racist comments?
* what statements did he allegedly make that were racist?
* who exactly were the people to whom he allegedly made racist comments?
* in what way were his comments disparaging or racist?
* why did the investigation, conducted under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers), state his coworker, Captain (CPT) LC, alleged in a sworn statement that he made racist remarks, when, in fact, the CPT made no such allegation?
* why did the Board not use Mr. EM's letter to prove he did not say anything racist or inappropriate to the police?

	d.  The Board failed to explain the exact language he purportedly used which was racist or unbecoming an officer.  

* the evidence in the AR 15-6 investigation stated because he felt the police officer's actions were racist, in that the police officer permitted the ransacking of his home
* to then suggest this indicated he called the officer a racist name is ludicrous and shows the Board perpetuates institutional racism

	e.  In this reconsideration, the applicant demands to know how his comments made to police Officer F, where he felt his constitutional rights had been violated, and where he believes Officer F's actions were racist equates to calling the officer "racist names?"  Additionally, how specifically is this behavior considered to be unbecoming an officer?

	f.  On 4 June 2013, he received a civil judgment against Ms. AT from the Superior Court of Chatham County, State of GA.  This judgment proved:

* Ms. AT lied to the military when she alleged he was racially-biased against whites
* she illegally interfered with his military career
* illegally took his property
* trespassed at his home
* defamed his name

	g.  Despite what this civil judgment proved, the Board decided an Army major (MAJ) AR 15-6 investigating officer (IO) with no legal background was more learned than a superior court judge.  He supports this contention by citing the Board's Record of Proceedings (ROP), dated 25 June 2014, wherein it was stated "the police reported to a property dispute."  In fact, the court found Ms. AT had trespassed and converted his property.  To him this shows the Board intentionally avoided the evidence, thus helping to perpetuate lies and unjustly support the railroading of his career.  

	h.  The 25 June 2014 ROP also, in part, based its findings on a legal review of the AR 15-6 investigation conducted by an incompetent Army JAG.  This legal review was inaccurate in that it relied on false evidence.

	i.  The 25 June 2014 ROP stated, in general, that he used disparaging remarks but did not state:

* what those remarks were, precisely
* to whom those remarks were directed
* how they could be considered disparaging or racist in nature

	j.  The ROP indicated he made these disparaging remarks, despite the following facts:

* Ms. AT was found by a court of law to have lied to the military
* Officer F's statement did not say the applicant made a racist remark, rather stating the applicant had commented he felt Officer F's behavior was racist

	k.  The applicant therefore, again, demands to know what statements he supposedly made that were racist, to whom these remarks were directed, and how were they disparaging and/or were reflective of conduct unbecoming an officer.

	l.  The AR 15-6 IO, MAJ LR, said he made racist remarks, in that he is supposed to have said he (the applicant) had been the acting Chief of Administrative Law for some time and was doing fine… he hoped it was not because of his color.  The applicant does not understand how the Board can allow such an unjust comment to be included in its ROP.  He therefore demands to know how the sworn statement made by his coworker, CPT LC, supports the IO's contention he made racist comments.

	m.  On 7 May 2012, Ms. AT tried to blackmail him, as affirmed by his former attorney, Mr. EM (who is a former JAG officer).  Mr. EM also stated Ms. AT confessed he (the applicant) did not assault her, nor did he make racial remarks to the police officers who were at his (the applicant's) house.  Despite Mr. EM's statement, the Board purposely failed to analyze and appropriately consider this evidence.  He therefore demands to know why the Board did not take Mr. EM's entire statement into account, only considering portions of his statement, and omitting the parts proving he did not say anything disparaging or racist to the police.

3.  The applicant provides:

* a copy of the ROP for AR20140002187, dated 25 June 2014
* memorandum, dated 7 November 2011, subject:  Findings and Recommendations - [applicant] AR 15-6 Investigation, with attached DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by IO/Board of Officers)
* court order by the Superior Court of Chatham County, State of GA, dated 4 June 2013
* DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 5 October 2011, prepared and signed by CPT LC
* letter, dated 4 July 2012, sent to the applicant and signed by Mr. EM
* DA Form 67-9 (contested OER)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20140002187, dated 25 June 2014.

2.  The applicant offers new arguments which constitute new evidence and warrant consideration by the Board.

3.  Having had prior Navy enlisted service, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army on 30 August 2007.

4.  He was serving in the Regular Army JAG Corps in the rank of CPT at the time of his initial application to this Board.  He was subsequently found to be physically unfit for continued military service by a physical evaluation board and received a disability rating of 60 percent.  He was retired on 9 June 2014 and was placed on the permanent disability retired list effective 10 June 2014.

5.  Based upon allegations received, Major General (MG) RA, Commanding General, Headquarters, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA, appointed MAJ LR as an IO pursuant to AR 15-6.  The purpose of the AR 15-6 investigation was to examine the facts and circumstances surrounding Ms. AT's allegations that the applicant made statements which violated the Army’s Equal Opportunity (EO) Program and that he had acted in a way that was prejudicial to good order and discipline or his actions were of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.  The IO's investigation was to specifically address the following:
	a.  Over the past year, did the applicant make any statements that were in violation of AR 600-20 (Army Command Policy), chapter 6, the EO in the Army Program?  Did those statements amount to racism, prejudice, or disparaging terms as defined in AR 600-20, paragraph 6-2(c)?  If so, what did he say and who did he make these statements to?  Were the statements directed at any particular person or class of persons?

	b.  Based on the totality of the alleged statements, if true, would the applicant appear to be able to provide EO and fair treatment for military personnel and family members without regard to any particular trait or characteristic and provide an environment free of unlawful discrimination and offensive behavior in  accordance with AR 600-20, paragraph 6-2(a)?

	c.  Over the past year, did the applicant act in a way that was prejudicial to good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces?

	d.  Were there witnesses to any of his statements or actions, to include:  

		(1) a Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police incident on or about 10 August 2011; and 

		(2) Ms. AT allegedly being pushed out of a moving car?  If so, interview any witnesses to either corroborate or contradict the allegations.

6.  A memorandum from the IO to MG RA, dated 7 November 2011, stated that an AR 15-6 investigation was conducted and based on a preponderance of the evidence the IO made the following findings:

	a.  The investigation was not conducted under the terms of AR 600-20, Chapter 6 (EO Program of the Army); however, standards relative to fair treatment for military personnel and family members contained in that section of the regulation were relevant in assessing the conduct of the applicant described in the course of the investigation.

	b.  During the previous year, the applicant had made numerous statements and communications to Ms. AT, a non-Department of Defense civilian, to a current co-worker, and to a civilian police officer that amounted to racism, prejudice, and disparaging terms.  The IO listed specific statements found to have been made by the applicant verbally or by text message.

* statements included that he hated white people; that a white police officer treated veterans poorly and was a racist, submitting the officer to a verbal assault; and that he intended to get revenge against white people because of past discrimination perpetrated against black people
* text messages included statements like "I am on a mission;  As I rise through the ranks I will have the power to seek revenge for my people" and "this is my way of getting back for what happened to our ancestors"

	c.  On 11 August 2011, the applicant precipitated a confrontation with a Savannah, GA police officer who reportedly responded to a property dispute between the applicant and Ms. AT.  The confrontation arose over the efforts of Ms. AT, a former girlfriend of the applicant, to recover personal property she allegedly left at his apartment.  Although he may have had a legal right to deny her entry to recover personal property she asserted was left at his apartment, his conduct far exceeded that appropriate for an officer.  The applicant, without provocation, made disparaging and racial remarks that were of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.  (According to Ms. AT, the applicant said words to the effect of "why don't you go date one of these white trash pieces of sxxx" referring to the white police officer.  The police officer concerned may not have heard the remark as he did not mention it later in his statement to the IO) (emphasis added).

	d.  On another occasion, near the installation’s access control point, the applicant and Ms. AT got into an argument while he was driving her in his car.  The argument culminated in the applicant reaching across Ms. AT, opening her car door, throwing her purse out the door, and pushing her in an attempt to get her out of the car.  His conduct created a threat to the safety and welfare of Ms. AT and potentially to others on the roadway.

	e.  On numerous occasions the applicant demonstrated an inability to control his emotions or his anger.

* in a confrontation with Ms. AT, the applicant punched furniture and threw things around the house saying "you're going to take that white piece of sxxx to the airport over me?"
* during a counseling session with Ms. AT, after the car incident, the applicant became disrespectful, cursing, storming out of the counseling session, and slamming the door, causing objects to fall off the wall
* during the 11 August 2011 confrontation with police, the applicant escalated the situation


	f.  The applicant had several friends and former co-workers or supervisors who spoke positively of his duty performance and the absence of any racial bias in the workplace.  However, the IO did not find that the positive character statements overcame the evidence that supported other statements made by the applicant at other times, and none of the witnesses were able to refute the specific statements made by and attributed to the applicant.

	g.  In two interviews with the applicant the IO did not find him to be reliable or credible in refuting the allegations of his inappropriate remarks and alleged misconduct.  The IO described, in detail, the applicant’s behavior and comments during the interviews.

7.  The IO recommended, based on the findings, that the applicant receive appropriate disciplinary action and be ordered to get anger management counseling and sensitivity/cultural awareness training to address his anger issues and his racist attitudes.  The IO further recommended that the investigation be forwarded for appropriate review of the applicant's fitness as a Judge Advocate.

8.  The AR 15-6 investigation included the following statements:

	a.  A statement, dated 25 October 2011, by COL RB, Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) and rater of the applicant.  He essentially stated:

* the applicant is a Judge Advocate in his office; sometime around 13 or 14 September 2011 the applicant's ex-girlfriend, Ms. AT, contacted his deputy saying she felt threatened by the applicant and requested a Military Protective Order (MPO)
* he went to the battalion commander and after hearing the information provided by Ms. AT he decided to issue the MPO
* the applicant was called to a site at Evans Army Airfield on 15 September 2011 to be issued the MPO; he apparently had not been told the purpose of the meeting
* when informed of the MPO, the applicant became visibly upset and angered; his face tightened, his eyes narrowed, and he was clenching and unclenching his fists
* he was shaking his head in disagreement and his manner of speech was agitated; he became louder (not yelling) and over-talked both the writer and the battalion commander
* the writer stated he never witnessed anyone act this way when receiving an MPO; he was very surprised by the applicant's demeanor (emphasis added)
* the battalion commander asked if he was okay, and would not let him leave until he calmed down
* he required the applicant to look him in the eyes and confirm he would not harm either Ms. AT or himself
* the writer required his deputy to call Ms. AT once a day over the weekend to ensure she was okay

	b.  Telephonic interview conducted with Officer W by the IO on 1 October 2011, indicates, in effect:

* the officer immediately knew the case when questioned by the IO; he said he never met the applicant, only spoke with him on the phone
* he was one of the officers who responded when the alarm went off at his home
* he found Ms. AT to be very pleasant; she explained why she was in the home and gave the applicant's phone number so he could be contacted
* when called, the applicant became very angry; screaming, cursing, and threatening on the phone (emphasis added)
* the officer tried to explain to the applicant that this was a civil, not criminal matter; he told the applicant that if he came home the situation could be resolved quickly
* the conversation ended with the applicant telling him he did not know his job, that he would see him fired, that he wanted the officer's badge number and he would be filing a complaint; the applicant then hung up on the officer

	c.  Telephonic interview conducted by the IO with Officer F, dated 10 October 2011, in which he essentially stated:

* he distinctly remembered the incident with the applicant because, although he is used to being called names, it is usually by criminals during more kinetic incidents, such as drug arrests (emphasis added)
* he was taken aback by the applicant's attitude; the applicant was yelling and screaming at him because he had given a bike rack to    Ms. AT, believing it to be her property
* he tried to tell the applicant to just give her back her property and it would all be over, but the applicant just continued his tirade
* the applicant said Ms. AT should be charged with burglary, that the police treat veterans poorly, that the police just did not care
* after being called a racist by the applicant, the officer gave a stern order to go inside the home; the officer felt the verbal assault had crossed the line 

9.  On 7 November 2011, the above-mentioned AR 15-6 investigation received a legal review and was determined to be legally sufficient for MG RA to approve the findings and recommendations and to take appropriate administrative action deemed necessary.  The legal review officer noted the following:

* the investigation substantially complied with legal requirements
* the findings were supported by the greater weight of the evidence
* the recommendations were consistent with the findings
* disciplinary action would be appropriate for documenting the applicant's misconduct
* recommendation for anger management and sensitivity training was consistent with the findings concerning the applicant's racially-based insensitive statements and instances of angry outbursts
* recommendation to forward the investigation through the JAG Corps technical chain for evaluation was appropriate for determining whether the applicant’s conduct bears on his fitness for continued service as a Judge Advocate

10.  On 7 November 2011, MG RA reprimanded the applicant for engaging in conduct that was unbecoming of an officer and of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.  

	a.  He stated the applicant assaulted a civilian female while operating a vehicle on public roads and provoked a confrontation with members of the Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police Department.  In addition, he made numerous disparaging and racially prejudicial remarks, verbally and in text messaging.  

	b.  He stated the applicant's unprofessional behavior displayed a lack of judgment and a lack of commitment to Army values.  He stated the applicant had brought discredit upon the Army and committed violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  He further stated that prior to making a filing decision he would consider any matters the applicant presented to him.

11.  On 23 November 2011, the applicant submitted a response to the GOMOR.  He requested that the GOMOR be set aside or that it be filed in his local file.  He stated that he was rebutting the allegations made against him.  Included in his rebuttal were witness statements and other evidence to prove he did not commit those offenses.  He stated in his rebuttal he would prove his ex-girlfriend lied about all three allegations; her real intent being to ruin his career for ending a year-long dysfunctional relationship. 

	a.  He denied attempting to push Ms. AT out of the car and throwing her purse out of a window, but acknowledged they had argued.  He maintained he stopped his car in the middle of traffic and asked her to get out of the car.  When she refused, stating she would not exit the car in the middle of nowhere, they both cooled down and continued their journey.  Ms. AT alleged in her statement she was pregnant at the time, but there was no evidence this was true.  The applicant maintained she just said that to make him look despicable.  He further asserted she could not have been pregnant due to a medical condition; despite this the IO presumed she was more credible because the applicant had paused and stumbled when questioned.

	b.  As to the 11 August 2011 incident with police, it began with a notification from his security service stating an intruder had entered his home.  This occurred while he was returning from a post-operative surgical appointment.  

		(1)  The officer who responded (Officer W) found Ms. AT at this residence, but, for some reason, never verified whether she had permission to be there.  The officer left the scene, allowing her to remain.  The applicant returned a call to Officer W, but never cursed at him.  Rather, he tried to convince the police officer that Ms. AT did not belong in his home.  

		(2)  On his arrival at his home, he saw Ms. AT was still at his residence.  He met Officer W and asked that he remove Ms. AT.  He was in a lot of pain due to the surgery he had undergone for his knee.  He did not remember an Officer F being at the scene.  In any case, he did not provoke the police and he was not out of line.  None of the police reports indicated he made any racial remarks.  

		(3)  Ms. AT was not authorized to be at his residence, she was not on his apartment lease, and, although she told the police she was there to retrieve a bike rack, she did not own a bike rack.  He contended her main purpose for being there was to confront him about ending their relationship.

	c.  On 12 August 2011, he filed a complaint with the police department.  In the complaint he outlined his issues with how Ms. AT's presence at his home was handled.  

* after receiving notice Ms. AT was at his home, he called the police; he told them he and Ms. AT did not live together and he paid all rents
* he then received a call from Officer W, who said Ms. AT did not have to leave because she had a set of key to the apartment and in the detached garage she had a bike; she required a bike rack to be able to take the bike
* despite his repeated requests to have her removed, the officer did not comply
* when he returned home from his medical appointment, he called 
911 because he saw Ms. AT's car was still there
* an officer arrived and was greeted at the door by Ms. AT who said she lived there and would not leave until the applicant gave her back the pictures in the back of his car and a bike rack (presumably to be able to relocate her bike)
* the officer stated this was a domestic issue; the applicant demanded Ms. AT be removed and the officer told him he was being belligerent
* the officer advised the applicant to go to the magistrate and the fact that she had her bike in his garage proved she had a right to go into his residence
* as a result of the police's inaction, Ms. AT deleted files from his computer, ate his food, and sat around his home from about 9:30 AM to 4:30 PM

	d.  Regarding derogatory text messages, he was advised by his counsel not to make a sworn statement because "if there was a period out of place someone could say [the applicant] made a false official statement."  Additionally, many of the text messages were unclear or taken out of context; he did not remember a number of them.  

		(1)  He asked the IO to obtain official phone company records to verify the messages.  She only included messages given to her by Ms. AT, not the phone company.  After reviewing the text messages, the applicant failed to see how they related to the investigation.  

		(2)  He acknowledged making the statement "white trash like [Mr. PS] is all you can get, watch" and he apologized if this was found to be offensive (emphasis added).  He understood this term to refer to someone deemed as lower class.  The applicant had seen comedians and politicians use this term and, thus, thought its use was acceptable.  He also used similar terms, such as "Ghetto" to describe someone that was low-class.  He did not mean for the use of this term to have racial overtones.

		(3)  He acknowledged having made the statement "you will never sustain a relationship with a successful black man; only poor white enlisted trash (emphasis added), this is the only kind of man that puts up with you."  He believes he was referring to Ms. AT's ex-husband in that case and meant to say this person was low-class and a bum.  He apologized for making this comment.

		(4)  He was supposed to have sent a text which said "I am on a mission.  As I rise through the ranks I will have more power to seek revenge for my people.  As you can see this discrimination bullsxxx is still around."  He could not remember the context of this text, or whether it was a joke or a quote.  He feels the context was that he would make sure there was no discrimination or unfair treatment under his power.  He honestly felt the term "revenge" was intended to convey "justice." (emphasis added) 

	e.  The applicant contended Ms. AT was not credible in that she said he had no friends, but later referred to visiting one of his friends with him.  Additionally, there are pictures of the applicant with Ms. AT and his friends.  

	f.  Ms. AT alleged he stated he wanted to enslave white people for 400 years.  It was further alleged this was said when they were at a couple's house during Christmas, 2010.  Although the IO never sought to obtain a statement from this couple, the applicant did, and the wife of that couple confirmed he did not make racist comments.

	g.  Ms. AT alleged he made comments to a respected psychologist that he wanted to enslave white people, would never date a white woman, and wanted reparations.  These statements are false and the IO never obtained a statement from this psychologist to verify what was actually said.  He did obtain a statement and the psychologist confirmed the statements were false.  Additionally, he dated a white woman after finishing law school, but the IO never asked him about this.

	h.  Ms. AT alleged, when they saw a behavioral therapist, the applicant told him "you don't know sxxx" and slammed the door.  The IO never contacted this therapist to validate if this occurred.  In fact, this allegation is false.

	i.  Ms. AT alleged he punched and destroyed his own furniture.  This is false and there is no evidence verifying it occurred.

	j.  The applicant asked the IO to interview Mr. PS (Ms. AT's sister's Caucasian boyfriend).  Mr. PS confirmed the applicant never said or did anything racist toward him.  Although Mr. PS did indicate the applicant was "short and curt" with him, Mr. PS made a bad assumption as to why the applicant acted that way toward him.  The reason he did not like Mr. PS was because of the living situation he was in, not because he was dating Ms. AT's sister.

	k.  In a sworn statement, Ms. AT requested an MPO because the applicant allegedly would not stay away from her.  The text messages and emails do not support this.  The last known text message from him to Ms. AT occurred the day prior to her complaint and it essentially asked her to leave him alone.  Her response was she would ruin his career.

	l.  Ms. AT stated he made racist comments to her best friend, Ms. TT saying he wanted to enslave white people for 400 years and would never date a white woman.  He talked to Ms. TT and she confirmed he never said those things.  The applicant provided her phone number so she could be called if there were questions.

	m.  On 6 August 2011, he gave Ms. AT an engagement ring.  Because of the MPO, he has been unable to recover this ring.

	n.  On 11 November 2011, his battalion commander called his civilian behavioral health therapist.  The battalion commander fully explained the applicant's reactions while being issued the MPO and his therapist stated those reactions were within normal behavior standards when receiving such news.  The applicant was sorry if the battalion commander and his senior rater, Colonel (COL) RB, seemed concerned about his demeanor.  He neither said nor did anything disrespectful.  He was in a lot of pain at that time due to his knee surgery.  He also had noticed that his animated hand movements and his not keeping eye contact had been misinterpreted by many people as being disrespectful or not being credible.  He did not curse or get up from his chair while being read the MPO.  His thoughts instead were on how his career was being placed in jeopardy by a vengeful girlfriend.

	o.  The IO stated he lacked credibility due to subjective actions such as pausing during questions, looking up at the ceiling, and shuffling papers.  He did not understand how credibility could be rated this way.  

		(1)  He was still recovering from his knee surgery and he feels his physical condition affected some of the behaviors witnessed by the battalion commander.  Additionally, he told the IO about his condition, but did not see where she mentioned this.  

		(2)  It appears the IO negatively interpreted his subjective behaviors to judge his truthfulness and credibility.  He finds it troubling when a decorated, 
9-year veteran and lawyer with a clean record had to have his credibility invalidated because of subjective behaviors rather than evidence.  

		(3)  He asserted he gave no inconsistent statements.  By contrast, he felt he had proven Ms. AT gave many untruths.

12.  On 1 December 2011, after careful consideration of the applicant's case and the chain of command's recommendations, the imposing officer, MG RA directed the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's local file for a period of 12 months.

13.  The applicant received a contested report, which was a permanent change of station OER that covered 6 months of rated time during the period 23 June 2011 through 6 January 2012.  He was serving as an Administrative Law Attorney.  His rater was MAJ NA, Chief Administrative Law, and his senior rater was COL RB, SJA.  The contested OER shows in:

	a.  Part IId (Authentication) – the senior rater placed an "X" in the "This is a referred report, do you wish to make comments?" The "Yes” box is marked with an “X.”  A second “Yes” box is marked with an "X" to show he provided attached comments.

	b.  Part  IVa (Army Values), the rater placed an "X" in the "No" block for "Honor" and "Respect."

	c.  Part IVb (Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions), the rater placed an "X" in the "No" block for the "Emotional" attributes.

	d.  Part Va (Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater) - Evaluate the Rated Officer's Performance During the Rating Period and His/Her Potential for Promotion), the rater placed an "X" in the "Other," block and entered the following comments:

While [Applicant's] duty performance was satisfactory during the rated period, his off-duty conduct was unbecoming of an officer and of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.  An informal investigation substantiated that [Applicant] provoked a confrontation with members of the Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police Department and made disparaging and racially prejudicial remarks, verbally and in text messages.  While on duty [Applicant] handled over 200 legal actions during the rating period.  His reviews included:  AR
15-6 investigations, commander inquiries, line of duty investigations, summary courts-martial, financial liability investigations, community relation events, official representation funding requests, use of invitational travel orders, and memorandum of agreements.  [Applicant] continued to build on his confidence and expertise by conducting formal briefings to Article 32, investigating and summary courts-martial officers.  As the Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield Office of the Staff Judge Advocate representative, [Applicant] attended and advised the Armed Forces Disciplinary Control Board and the Department of Public Affairs and Relations committees.  [Applicant] showcased his knowledge when he provided legal briefings on the Posse Comitatus Act and Standing Rules for the Use of Force to the Fort Stewart/ Hunter Army Airfield Guard Augmentation and Quick Reaction Force.  The rated officer has completed or initiated an Army Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback/360 within the last 3 years.

	e.  Part Vc (Comment on Potential for Promotion), the rater entered the comment:  "[Applicant] has made substantial contributions to the success of the office; however, he should not be promoted.  [Applicant's] personal conduct falls well short of Army Values.  [Applicant] lacks the qualities and values for promotion or for positions of greater responsibility."

	f.  Part VIIa (Senior Rater - Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade), the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Do Not Promote" block and a second "X" in the "Yes" block to indicate he senior rated 25 officers of this grade (at the time) and that a DA Form 67-9-1 (Officer Evaluation Report Support Form) was received with this report and considered in his evaluation and review.

	g.  Part VIIb (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in the Same Grade), the senior rater rated the applicant "Below Center of Mass - Retain."

	h.  Part VIIc (Comments on Performance/Potential), the senior rater entered the following comments: 

[Applicant's] successful performance during this rating period was offset by his off-duty misconduct as substantiated in an informal investigation.  His primary contributions to the Administrative and Civil Law Division were numerous reviews of community relation event requests, financial liability investigations, official representation fund requests, and advising Article 32 and summary courts martial officers.  Continue to assign to developmental jobs that will afford him the opportunity to gain experience and achieve his potential.  Do not promote.  [Applicant] refused to sign this evaluation as the rated officer.

14.  On 4 January 2012, the applicant's senior rater referred the contested OER to him for acknowledgment and the opportunity to provide comments.  On the same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification memorandum and indicated he would submit comments.  On 13 January 2012, he submitted a response wherein he stated:

	a.  The OER for that period did not deduct the period that he was on convalescent leave due to surgery from 3 August to 15 September 2011.  In accordance with AR 623-3 (Evaluation Rating System) that time must be deducted from the rating period if it was over 30 days.  The OER did not reflect his surgery, the rehabilitation, the complications from the surgery, nor the prescription medication (oxycodone, narcotic) that he was under that consumed much of that OER rating period which affected and added to stress at work while coping with the accusations from his ex-girlfriend and was a major part of the informal investigation and his rebuttal.

	b.  The Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) section of the OER did not accurately reflect that he was on a permanent profile and that he did not participate in an APFT nor did he give his height and weight during that period in accordance with AR 623-3.

	c.  The OER did not adequately reflect his successful stint as Acting Chief of Administrative Law while having the experience of a Junior Captain with only 1 year as an active duty Judge Advocate.  The OER did not state the personnel that he supervised, including summer interns, nor did it state that he was a trainer.  The OER describes his work as only satisfactory during this period.

	d.  MG RA stated in a meeting after reading his rebuttal that he intended that the applicant be able to continue his career and therefore filed the GOMOR in his local file.  MG RA realized that the incidents stemming from the informal investigation contained many inconsistent accusations made by an ex-girlfriend to ruin a promising career.  It was never his intent that this domestic situation be reflected in a potentially career-ending referred OER which would be filed in his OMPF. (emphasis added)

15.  The contested OER shows it was signed by the rater and senior rater on 20 January 2012.  The applicant's signature is not on the contested OER.

16.  On 9 May 2012, the applicant, through his counsel, requested a commander's inquiry (Cl) into the contested OER.  The request included a summary of the applicant's issues with the AR 15-6 investigation.  Counsel noted:

* Ms. AT claimed to have entered the applicant's apartment in September 2011 to retrieve personal property (a bike rack and bike equipment); the property belonged to the applicant
* alleged racist statements made to friends and therapists were shown to be false
* when the police responded to the applicant's apartment he was justifiably angry; he was also under the influence of narcotic painkillers
* statements made by the police were rife with hyperbole; while upset, the applicant did not direct racist remarks toward them
* the applicant wrote a complaint about the actions taken by the police; undoubtedly the officers knew of this letter when they gave their statements and would naturally be inclined to harbor ill feelings toward the applicant
* part of the investigation was based on text messages and alleged verbal discussions; a poll of any married or serious couple would reveal they know many unsavory truths about their partners and Ms. AT chose to use her knowledge to destroy the applicant's career
* the private conversations and interactions between the applicant and 
Ms. AT are not of a nature to bring discredit on the Armed Forces
* statements made within a romantic relationship should not be used to judge the quality of an officer; they are made in the strictest confidence and often reflect frustration not intended to be shared with other members of society
* in recognition of the fact Ms. AT is unworthy of belief, counsel requests the CI find the adverse information to be unjust and untrue

17.  MG RA directed a CI into the applicant's contested OER.  

	a.  The applicant provided a statement wherein he listed his concerns about the OER.  He reiterated his belief that Ms. AT's motivation was one of revenge when she disclosed private text messages as a means of portraying him as both angry and a racist.  He acknowledged he was upset with the performance of law enforcement in the September 2011 incident.  He stated he had been subjected to blackmail by Ms. AT who promised his counsel to provide a "true and correct" statement fully explaining her reports to the chain of command, but only if the applicant paid her money (at least $1,500.00).  When he rejected her request, she refused to provide the statement.

	b.  The applicant's counsel (Mr. EM) provided a letter, dated 4 July 2012 to the applicant.  In the letter, Mr. EM further recounted a 10-minute phone conversation he had with Ms. AT on 7 May 2012.  Mr. EM stated, in pertinent part that:

		(1)  Ms. AT stated her prior statement to the applicant’s command was taken out of context and exaggerated.  She would prepare a new statement which would largely absolve the applicant of wrongdoing, deny that the applicant assaulted her in a vehicle, explain the circumstances of the incident at the applicant’s apartment, and affirm that she merely believed the applicant had anger problems.  She believed the applicant’s command exaggerated the negatives in her statement and ignored the positives.  Largely, her intent in making a statement was to get the applicant's command to have the applicant seek counseling.  Additionally, she was upset and angry at the time of the initial statement.

		(2)  Ms. AT also noted the applicant did not make comments of a racial nature to police officers at his house and that the applicant had merely commented that the police officers were likely acting on racial motives.  Although the applicant was upset and agitated, he never called them names or insulted them based on race, nationality, or skin-color.  Ms. AT said she too was upset at the time of the police intervention.  Mr. EM stated that Ms. AT never provided the letter she promised she would write and send to the applicant’s attorney.

18.  As a result of that inquiry, MG RA determined the applicant should have been afforded a second opportunity in the OER referral process to review and sign the OER subsequent to administrative changes made based on his initial review.

	a.  The CI established through the applicant's testimony that he would have signed the OER as it now appears in his file, had he been given the opportunity.  MG RA found no malicious intent on the part of the applicant's rating chain.  Failure to offer a second review to the applicant in the referral process was merely an oversight, since the changes made were administrative in nature.

	b.  The remaining complaints in the applicant's request for a CI were unsubstantiated.  Specifically, he found that MAJ RA was qualified to rate the applicant, the referral procedures were appropriate subject to the second review for the applicant to sign, and there was a sufficient investigation to support the adverse comments in the report.

19.  On 26 December 2012, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) requesting the contested OER be removed.  He based his request on the following:

* the rater did not achieve at least 90 days of consecutive supervisory time
* he was not allowed the opportunity to sign the revised OER
* referral procedures were not followed
* the adverse comments were not true; he enclosed evidence which he contended would prove the complainant, Ms. AT made involved false official statements

20.  On 2 May 2013, the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) denied the applicant's request for removal of the contested OER from his OMPF.  

* the evidence used as the basis for findings and recommendations for the AR 15-6 investigations were not negated by the additional evidence submitted by the applicant
* the AR 15-6 received a legal review which deemed it legally sufficient and supported the adverse comments reflected in the contested report
* the findings were properly addressed and approved by the appointing authority
* a CI was conducted to address the issues raised by the applicant, with the exception of an administrative oversight, the contentions were determined to be unsubstantiated
* the fact the applicant felt the adverse comments were not true did not negate the rating official's view of his performance during the rated period;  the choice of what to enter on the OER was ultimately the rating official's responsibility
* the available evidence showed the applicant did not provide clear and convincing evidence to show the ratings were in error, or were not the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials

21.  On 7 June 2013, the applicant requested reconsideration of the OSRB's denial.  He stated that after a bench trial, the Superior Court of Chatham County, GA, found that Ms. AT lied about all the allegations she reported to the military, lied to the Savannah police, trespassed on his property, defamed his character, and interfered with his military career.  He further stated the comments on the referred OER were not supported by the facts and circumstances.

22.  On 5 December 2013, the OSRB by unanimous vote determined the overall merits of the applicant's case were insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the OSRB set forth on 2 May 2013.

	a.  The referenced civil court order showed the defendant (Ms. AT) failed to respond and appear in court; therefore, by default, the court was compelled to grant a default judgment as to liability.  The court accepted the applicant's assertions against Ms. AT as fact. (emphasis added)

	b.  The AR 15-6 investigation found the applicant made numerous statements and communications to Ms. AT and others which amounted to racism, prejudice, and disparaging terms; he precipitated a confrontation with the police and the IO telephonically spoke with one of the officers to confirm the applicant's actions.

	c.  The applicant received a GOMOR for engaging in conduct unbecoming of an officer, and of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.  The imposing authority directed the GOMOR to be filed locally.

	d.  The contested OER only referenced his off-duty conduct as being unbecoming of an officer and noted that an informal investigation had substantiated the applicant had provoked a confrontation with the police, and had made disparaging and racially prejudicial remarks.

	e.  The applicant did not provide compelling evidence to dispute the narrative comments.  Additionally, in his rebuttal to the GOMOR, the applicant admitted to making statements and sending texts that amounted to racism, though he alleged his words were taken out of context and that he used the term "white trash" to describe a socio-economic status.

	f.  The rating officials were not prohibited from making comments regarding the applicant's behavior during the rated period.  

	g.  The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to show the contested OER was not processed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, were not the considered opinions and objective judgments of the rating officials, and that the reports were the result of an error.

23.  Applicant provides:

	a.  A sworn statement by CPT LC, dated 5 October 2911, essentially stated:

* the writer never heard the applicant make any racist remarks; he was always helpful and available while serving as the acting Chief of Administrative Law
* she believed the applicant thought he was being dismissed and not taken seriously, with his race being a contributing factor
* as an example, she described a time, on the arrival of the new Chief of Administrative Law, when the applicant openly wondered why everyone was making such a big deal of the new Chief's arrival; he said he hoped [their reaction] was not because of his color (emphasis added)

	b.  A court order dated 4 June 2013, by the Superior Court of Chatham County, State of Georgia, which essentially states:

* in the case of the applicant (plaintiff) versus Ms. AT (defendant), the court issued an order granting the plaintiff's motion for a default judgment
* the defendant was determined to be in default and, therefore, admitted to all facts in the complaint (emphasis added)
* because this action was one ex delicto (resulting from a wrong), the plaintiff presented testimony as to damages
* the court adjudged the plaintiff was entitled to damages totaling $844.99

24.  In a civil suit in the State Court of Chatham County, State of GA, with the applicant as the plaintiff and police officers W and F as defendants, dated 20 November 2013, the applicant had submitted a request for admissions from both officers.  They essentially confirmed their earlier statements given to the AR 15-6 IO.  Additionally, Officer F admitted he had been reprimanded and had since resigned from the police force.

25.  AR 623-3, dated 10 August 2007, prescribed the policies and tasks for the Army’s Evaluation Reporting System and included reporting systems for officers.  It included policy statements, operating tasks, and rules in support of operating tasks.

	a.  Paragraph 1-8 (Standards of Service) stated the Evaluation Reporting System (ERS) is a robust entity wherein rating officials make assessments of performance and potential against a standard - Army values, the Army's leadership doctrine framework, the organization's mission, and a Soldier's particular set of duties, responsibilities, tasks, and objectives.

	b.  Paragraph 1-9 (Performance and potential evaluations) stated Army evaluation reports were assessments on how well the rated Soldier met duty requirements and adhered to the professional standards of the Army officer corps.  Performance would be evaluated by observing action, demonstrated behavior, and results from the point of view of the values, leadership framework and responsibilities identified on the evaluation forms, counseling forms, and other pertinent regulations.  Potential evaluations would be performance-based assessments of the rated officers of the same grade to perform in positions of greater responsibility and/or higher grades.

	c.  Paragraph 3-9 (Rater assessments) stated Part IV contains a listing of the Army values and the dimensions of the Army's leadership doctrine that define professionalism for the Army officer.  These apply across all grades, positions, branches, and specialties.  They are needed to maintain public trust, confidence, and the qualities of leadership and management needed to sustain an effective officer corps.

	d.  Paragraph 3-23 (Unproven derogatory information) stated (Use of derogatory information) stated in pertinent part:

* references will only be made to actions or investigations that have been processed to completion, adjudicated, and had a final action taken before submitting the evaluation to Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA)
* this restriction is intended to prevent unverified derogatory information from being included in evaluation reports
* any verified derogatory information may be entered on an evaluation

	e.  Paragraph 3-39 (Modification to previously submitted reports) stated:

* an evaluation report submitted to HQDA and included in a rated Soldier's OMPF is presumed to be administratively correct and to represent the considered opinions and objective judgments of the rating officials (emphasis added)
* requests to alter, withdraw, or replace a report will not be honored
* as an exception, information that was unknown or unverified when the report was prepared but is later verified, and is so significant that it would have resulted in a higher or lower evaluation, had it been known

	f.  Paragraph 6-7 stated that evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the Soldier’s official record were presumed to be administratively correct, have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation (emphasis added).

	g.  Paragraph 6-11 stated that to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence establishing clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration or that action was warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.  The burden of proof rests with the appellant (emphasis added).

26.  AR 15-6 establishes procedures for investigations and boards of officers not specifically authorized by any other directive.  

	a.  Paragraph 3-10a states that an investigation finding is a clear and concise statement of a fact that can be readily deduced from evidence in the record.  It is directly established by evidence in the record or is a conclusion of fact by the IO or board.  

	b.  Negative findings (for example, that the evidence does not establish a fact) are often appropriate.  The IO or board will normally not exceed the scope of findings indicated by the appointing authority.  

	c.  The findings will be necessary and sufficient to support each recommendation.

27.  Title 9 (Civil Practice), chapter 11 (Civil Practice Act), article 7 (Judgment) of Georgia State Law allows for default judgment in civil suits when the respondent fails to respond within the allotted time.  

28.  According to FindLaw.com (a legal website), the standard of proof for a civil suit is preponderance of evidence, whereas the standard of proof for a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt.

29.  Article 133, Uniform Code of Military Justice defines conduct unbecoming an officer as an action or behavior in an official, unofficial, or private capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the officer personally, and seriously compromises the person's standing as an officer. 

30.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes policies and procedures for the ABCMR.  It states, in pertinent part, the ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it.  The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions.  It states further, in paragraph 2-11, that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR.  The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration to remove the contested OER from his OMPF.  He also requests to appear before the Board.

2.  The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered; however, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board.  Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of the ABCMR.  In this case, the evidence of record, including independent evidence he provided, is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time.  As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case.


3.  He identifies four issues he states were not appropriately addressed in the Board's initial decision, and should be addressed in this reconsideration. 

	a.  The Board failed to explain the exact language he purported used that was racist or unbecoming of an officer.  He demanded to know how commenting that a police officer's actions were racist, in a situation where he felt his constitutional rights had been violated. 

* he is apparently referring to a paragraph within the ROP, under the heading of Consideration of Evidence, which was summarizing the findings of the AR 15-6 investigation
* the ROP took the information directly from the IO's memorandum, dated 7 November 2011, which was addressed to the appointing officer, subject Findings and Recommendations - [applicant] AR 15-6 Investigation; wherein it stated "the applicant made numerous statements and communications to Ms. AT, a non-DOD civilian, to a current co-worker, and to a civilian police officer that amounted to racism, prejudice, and disparaging terms"

	b.  He demanded to know what statements he made that were racist, to whom they were made, and how these statements were disparaging or showed conduct unbecoming of an officer.  In her memorandum addressing findings and recommendations to the appointing officer, the IO identified examples, which included the following:

* statements by the applicant in which he said:  he hated white people; a white on-duty police officer treated veterans poorly and was racist, he then subjected the officer to a verbal assault; he intended to get revenge against white people because of past discrimination
* text messages by the applicant which essentially stated he saw himself on a mission and, as he rose through the ranks and gained power, he would seek revenge for his people
* he referred to the boyfriend of Ms. AT's sister as white trash
* he made a comment that "this [was] my way of getting back for what happened to our ancestors"

	c.  He demanded to know how the sworn statement of CPT LC supported the IO's assertion he made a racist remark to her.  A review of that statement does not appear to support the IO's assertion of a prejudicial comment.

* in her sworn statement, CPT LC stated, on one occasion, the applicant came to her office and commented how everyone was making a big deal about the arrival of the new Chief of Administrative Law
* he (the applicant) noted he had been the acting Chief for some time and was doing fine
* he stated he "hoped it wasn't because of his color"
* in her memorandum addressing findings and recommendations, the IO apparently interpreted this comment to mean he felt his coworkers were happy he no longer supervised them because he was black

	d.  He demanded to know why the Board did not take the statement of Mr. EM into account.  His statement proved he (the applicant) did not make disparaging or racist comments to the police officer.  He also asked why the Board addressed parts of Mr. EM's statement, but ignored other exculpatory portions.

* the ROP summarized a letter from Mr. EM, prepared 7 July 2012, in which he recounted a phone conversation with Ms. AT occurring on 7 May 2012
* the ROP showed:

* "Ms. AT stated her prior statement to the applicant's command was taken out of context and exaggerated"
* "she would prepare a new statement which would largely absolve the applicant of wrongdoing, deny that the applicant assaulted her in a vehicle, explain the circumstances of the incident at the applicant's apartment, and affirm that she merely believed the applicant had anger problems"
* "she believed the applicant's command exaggerated the negatives in her statement and ignored the positives"
* "largely, her intent in making a statement was to get the applicant's command to have the applicant seek counseling"
* "additionally, she was upset and angry at the time of the initial statement"

* the ROP also stated Mr. EM never received the promised statement from Ms. AT
* not included in the ROP, was a note by Mr. EM that Ms. AT acknowledged the applicant:

* did not make comments of a racial nature to the police officers at his house, but merely commented they were acting based on racial motives
* the applicant was upset and agitated at the police, but never called them names or insulted them based on race, nationality, or skin-color
* Ms. AT mentioned she too was upset at the time of the police intervention

4.  AR 623-3 permits the removal of an OER only when, by clear and convincing evidence, the applicant is able to show a material error or injustice has occurred.  The applicant has pursued all appropriate avenues offered by due process to have his contentions considered.  He has maintained throughout that the bases of the AR 15-6 investigation were false, inaccurate, or exaggerated.  In each instance, his assertions were evaluated and found to be insufficient.  

5.  It is concerning that the allegations which precipitated the AR 15-6 investigation and, later, this OER, were brought forth by a former girlfriend who could, conceivably, have initiated her actions solely to avenge what appears to have been an unamicable break-up.  There are safeguards in place, however, which are intended to protect the applicant as well as the Army.  Those safeguards include the investigation of the allegations and the gathering of evidence which can potentially overcome those allegations.  Additionally, the applicant had the ability to present his case and offer exculpatory evidence in his own behalf.  In this instance, the applicant was afforded and exercised his right to present his case and offer exculpatory evidence.  This evidence, along with his demeanor, were evaluated and reported by the IO.  The evidence included more than just Ms. AT's allegations; there were also sworn statements from the police officers involved in the September 2011 incident as well as statements from leadership, coworkers, and letters of support.  The result of the investigation received a legal review and was assessed by the appointing authority.  Subsequently, this evidence was considered in the preparation of the contested OER.  It was again evaluated as part of the CI and two subsequent reviews by the OSRB.  In each instance, the evidence was not found to be sufficiently compelling to overcome the allegations.

6.  The applicant asserts the Board did not properly give weight to the findings of the Superior Court of Chatham County, State of Georgia in that, despite its default judgment in his favor, the Board still upheld the contested OER's content and the results of the AR 15-6 investigation.  As noted by the OSRB, however, a default judgment does not result from findings of fact, rather it is given by the court in civil cases when the defending party fails to respond.  It therefore does not support a presumption the allegations made in support of the civil action were incontrovertibly proven to be true.

a. The applicant argues that the default judgment he obtained against 
Ms. AT, and the $844.99 in damages he was awarded proves she lied during the 
AR 15-6 investigation.  That argument, however, is deceptively misleading and unsound.  The default judgment merely means Ms. AT never bothered to defend the case.  Because Ms. AT never answered the applicant's complaint, the court was required to assume that all of the applicant's asserted facts in his civil complaint were true for purposes of the default proceedings (see GA Civil Code 9-11-55).  The fact that a Georgia trial court was required to assume that certain facts were true for the limited purpose of a default proceeding imposes no similar obligation on this Board.  Significantly, much of Ms. AT's AR 15-6 testimony is corroborated by other substantiated evidence, including the applicant's own admissions.

	b.  Furthermore, it is important to note Ms. AT never retracted the testimony she provided during the AR 15-6 investigation.  Even the letter from the applicant's lawyer (dated 4 July 2012, RE:  Phone Conversation with Ms. AT) acknowledges that Ms. AT merely asserts that the command took her prior statement out of context and exaggerated it (emphasis added).  She also states the command, not she, "exaggerated the negatives and ignored the positives."  The applicant is correct that Ms. AT stated to his attorney that the applicant never made comments of a racial nature to police officers at the applicant's house; but nowhere in the contested OER does it assert the applicant used racial epithets in earshot of police officers.  Instead, the contested OER states, accurately, the applicant "provoked a confrontation with members of the … Police Department."  This assertion is corroborated by information obtained during interviews with the two police officers involved in the 11 August 2011 incident, and by Ms. AT's previous testimony.

	c.  Despite questions about Ms. AT's motives and her reliability, her testimony is still probative of the applicant's misconduct.  However, even if Ms. AT's testimony were entirely disregarded, sufficient evidence exists elsewhere in the record to support and justify the derogatory comments and ratings in the contested OER.  That the applicant made "disparaging and racially prejudicial remarks, verbally and in text messages" is amply proven by witnesses other than Ms. AT and, significantly, by the applicant himself.  Particularly persuasive is the applicant's admission that he sent a text message that asserted that Ms. AT, his girlfriend at the time, could sustain a relationship with "only poor white trash."  Remarks of this nature are clearly not consistent with Army values, and an Army officer who writes and electronically texts such a remark surely can expect censure.

7.  Based on the foregoing, the applicant did not provide the clear and compellingly convincing evidence required to justify the removal of the contested OER.  As such, there is insufficient basis upon which to grant the requested relief.



BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__x______  __x______  ___x__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20140002187, dated 25 June 2014.



      _______ _  x _______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140018381



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140018381



21


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1